Vill. of Horseheads v. Horseheads Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 April 2012
• Citation: 941 N.Y.S.2d 785,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02543,94 A.D.3d 1191
• Parties: In the Matter of the Arbitration between VILLAGE OF HORSEHEADS, Appellant,andHORSEHEADS POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02543
94 A.D.3d 1191
941 N.Y.S.2d 785

In the Matter of the Arbitration between VILLAGE OF HORSEHEADS, Appellant,andHORSEHEADS POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

April 5, 2012.

[941 N.Y.S.2d 786]

Roemer, Wallens, Gold & Mineaux, L.L.P., Albany (Earl T. Redding of counsel), for appellant.

Marilyn D. Berson, Newburgh, for respondent.

Before: SPAIN, J.P., MALONE JR., KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

EGAN JR., J.

[94 A.D.3d 1191] Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (O'Shea, J.), entered August 10, 2011 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

At all times relevant to this proceeding, petitioner and respondent were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA), pursuant to the terms of which any unresolved grievance was subject to arbitration. Insofar as is relevant here, the CBA broadly defined a grievance as “any claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of existing laws, rules, procedures, regulations, application or enforcement of the terms of this agreement, administrative orders or work orders or rules of [petitioner].”

Beginning in 1999, petitioner's then Chief of Police issued a series of general orders setting forth various “rules and regulations” relative to departmental operating procedures and policies—including General Order A–13.1, which required that a minimum of two officers be assigned to patrol duty for each shift. In 2011, petitioner's new Chief of Police reissued General Order A–13.1, reducing the minimum staffing requirement to at least one patrol officer per shift, as well as General Order A–14, which provided that personnel requests for time off or training would be based upon, among other things, the revised staffing requirement.

Shortly thereafter, respondent filed a grievance contending that petitioner violated the CBA by reducing the minimum staffing levels for patrol officers. Petitioner denied the grievance, and respondent thereafter filed a demand for arbitration. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration, arguing that there was no valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate changes or amendments to general orders. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application and this appeal ensued.¹

We affirm. Our role in reviewing an application to stay arbitration is limited ( see [94 A.D.3d 1192] Matter of...